[GOAL] Re: RCUK policy: relationship between green and CC-BY-NC

[Dan Stowell]

Mark and all,

Thanks all for the responses - yes, this certainly clarifies things as 
far as I'm concerned. So under RCUK green policy, it is OK for 
publishers to forbid commercial re-use, but not noncommercial.

Mark, your slide led to a slight misinterpretation within our uni, so 
might I suggest some extra kid gloves may be needed? Phrasing such as 
"equates to CC-BY-NC" certainly carries a risk of being taken to mean 
"must use CC-BY-NC", as has actually happened here! Talking about green 
OA's requirements mainly in terms of CC licences may lead others to the 
wrong conclusions.

Thanks again for the clarification.

Best
Dan


> Pippa / Dan,
>
> Section 4.2 of the policy states that "the journal must allow deposit of Accepted Manuscripts that include all changes resulting from peer review (but not necessarily incorporating the publisher's formatting) in other repositories, without restrictions on non-commercial re-use and within a defined period" (http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/documents/documents/RCUK%20_Policy_on_Access_to_Research_Outputs.pdf).
>
> The policy does not define a specific licence for green deposit, provided non-commercial re-use such as text and data mining is supported.  In presentations I say that this 'equates to CC-BY-NC', however, we do not specifically require CC-BY-NC.  This is because some publishers, such as Nature (http://www.nature.com/authors/policies/license.html), offer specific deposit licences which meet the requirements of the policy.
>
> However, as Ross notes, this is the minimum requirement. So if authors are able and willing to use more open licences, such as CC-BY, we would encourage this.  The more open the licence, the less ambiguities and barriers there are to re-use of repository content.
>
> Mark.
>
>
> Mark Thorley
> NERC, Head of Science Information
> NERC, Data Management Coordinator
> Chair RCUK Research Outputs Network
> Member CODATA Executive Committee
>
> Natural Environment Research Council
> Swindon SN2 1EU
> Email: mrt at nerc.ac.uk
> twitter: @MarkRThorley
> skype: MarkRThorley

>
>
>
>
> On 30/01/13 15:05, Dan Stowell wrote:> Dear all,
>>
>> We're having some discussion in our research group here about the RCUK
>> policy, and there's a point of interpretation, which I wonder if you've
>> resolved yourselves.
>>
>> The question is whether RCUK policy on green OA implies a specific
>> licence, and in particular whether it implies CC-BY-NC. I don't really
>> want to discuss what the policy *should* be, if you don't mind - just
>> trying to understand what the policy *is*.
>>
>> Linked from the RCUK's main outputs page
>> <http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/research/Pages/outputs.aspx>
>> are two documents. One is the main policy document
>> <http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/documents/documents/RCUK%20_Policy_on_Access_to_Research_Outputs.pdf>
>>
>> - it clearly says (sec 4.1) that gold must be CC-BY, while for green
>> (sec 4.2) it says "the journal must allow deposit [...] in other
>> repositories, without restrictions on non-commercial re-use and within a
>> defined period." So it seems clear to me that that is not a positive
>> requirement for a specific licence, but a negative requirement that we
>> cannot do green OA that bans commercial use. The guidance document
>> linked just below it does not narrow down green any further.
>>
>> However, linked from *the same page* is a presentation
>> <http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/documents/documents/Thorley_RCUK_November2012.pdf) which
>> very clearly (slide 10) says "Green (at least post print) with a maximum
>> embargo period of 6(12) months, and CC-BY-NC".
>>
>> Both of these cannot be true, or else I'm misinterpreting something.
>> Does the Thorley presentation contain a mistaken assertion, or a missing
>> context?
>>
>> Thanks
>> Dan
>>
>>

-- 
Dan Stowell
Postdoctoral Research Assistant
Centre for Digital Music
Queen Mary, University of London
Mile End Road, London E1 4NS
http://www.elec.qmul.ac.uk/digitalmusic/people/dans.htm
http://www.mcld.co.uk/